Introduction to the Critical Balance - Residual Kidney Function and Incremental Transition to Dialysis

Patient-reported outcomes in a pilot clinical trial of twice-weekly hemodialysis start with adjuvant pharmacotherapy and transition to thrice-weekly hemodialysis vs conventional hemodialysis

Background

Physical and emotional symptoms are prevalent in patients with kidney-dysfunction requiring dialysis (KDRD) and the rigors of thrice-weekly hemodialysis (HD) may contribute to deteriorated health-related quality of life. Less intensive HD schedules might be associated with lower symptom and/or emotional burden.

Methods

The TWOPLUS Pilot study was an individually-randomized trial conducted at 14 dialysis units, with the primary goal to assess feasibility and safety. Patients with incident KDRD and residual kidney function were assigned to incremental HD start (twice-weekly HD for 6 weeks followed by thrice-weekly HD) vs conventional HD (thrice-weekly HD). In exploratory analyses, we compared the two treatment groups with respect to three patient-reported outcomes measures. We analyzed the change from baseline in the score on Dialysis Symptom Index (DSI, range 0–150), Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7, range 0–21), and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9, range 0–27) at 6 (n = 20 in each treatment group) and 12 weeks (n = 21); with lower scores denoting lower symptom burden. Analyses were adjusted for age, race, gender, baseline urine volume, diabetes mellitus, and malignancy. Participants’ views on the intervention were sought using a Patient Feedback Questionnaire (n = 14 in incremental and n = 15 in conventional group).

Results

The change from baseline to week 6 in estimated mean score (standard error; P value) in the incremental and conventional group was − 9.7 (4.8; P = 0.05) and − 13.8 (5.0; P = 0.009) for DSI; − 1.9 (1.0; P = 0.07) and − 1.5 (1.4; P = 0.31) for GAD-7; and − 2.5 (1.1; P = 0.03) and − 3.5 (1.5; P = 0.02) for PHQ-9, respectively. Corresponding changes from week 6 to week 12 were − 3.1 (3.2; P = 0.34) and − 2.4 (5.5; P = 0.67) in DSI score; 0.5 (0.6; P = 0.46) and 0.1 (0.6; P = 0.87) in GAD-7 score; and − 0.3 (0.6; P = 0.70) and − 0.5 (0.6; P = 0.47) in PHQ-9 score, respectively. Majority of respondents felt their healthcare was not jeopardized and expressed their motivation for study participation was to help advance the care of patients with KDRD.

Conclusions

This study suggests a possible mitigating effect of twice-weekly HD start on symptoms of anxiety and depression at transition from pre-dialysis to KDRD. Larger clinical trials are required to rigorously test clinically-matched incrementally-prescribed HD across diverse organizations and patient populations.

Trial registration

Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study identifier NCT03740048, registration date 14/11/2018.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12882-022-02946-w.

Twice-Weekly Hemodialysis With Adjuvant Pharmacotherapy and Transition to Thrice-Weekly Hemodialysis: A Pilot Study

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Thrice-weekly hemodialysis (HD) is the most common treatment modality for kidney failure in the United States. We conducted a pilot study to assess the feasibility and safety of incremental-start HD in patients beginning maintenance HD.

STUDY DESIGN

Pilot study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Adults with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥5 mL/min/1.73 m² and urine volume ≥500 mL/d beginning maintenance HD at 14 outpatient dialysis units.

EXPOSURE

Randomized allocation (1:1 ratio) to twice-weekly HD and adjuvant pharmacologic therapy for 6 weeks followed by thrice-weekly HD (incremental HD group) or thrice-weekly HD (conventional HD group).

OUTCOME

The primary outcome was feasibility. Secondary outcomes included changes in urine volume and solute clearance.

RESULTS

Of 77 patients invited to participate, 51 consented to do so, representing 66% of eligible patients. We randomized 23 patients to the incremental HD group and 25 patients to the conventional HD group. Protocol-based loop diuretics, sodium bicarbonate, and patiromer were prescribed to 100%, 39%, and 17% of patients on twice-weekly HD, respectively. At a mean follow-up of 281.9 days, participant adherence was 96% to the HD schedule (22 of 23 and 24 of 25 in the incremental and conventional groups, respectively) and 100% in both groups to serial timed urine collection. The incidence rate ratio for all-cause hospitalization was 0.31 (95% CI, 0.08-1.17); and 7 deaths were recorded (1 in the incremental and 6 in the conventional group). At week 24, the incremental HD group had lower declines in urine volume (a difference of 51.0 [95% CI, -0.7 to 102.8] percentage points) and in the averaged urea and creatinine clearances (a difference of 57.9 [95% CI, -22.6 to 138.4] percentage points).

LIMITATIONS

Small sample size, time-limited twice-weekly HD.

CONCLUSIONS

It is feasible to enroll patients beginning maintenance HD into a randomized study of incremental-start HD with adjuvant pharmacotherapy who adhere to the study protocol during follow-up. Larger multicenter clinical trials are indicated to determine the efficacy and safety of incremental HD with longer twice-weekly HD periods.

FUNDING

Funding was provided by Vifor Inc.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03740048.

Dialysis Patient-Centeredness and Precision Medicine: Focus on Incremental Home Hemodialysis and Preserving Residual Kidney Function

An exponential interest in incremental transition to dialysis recently has emerged in lieu of outright three times/wk hemodialysis initiation as the standard of care. Incremental dialysis is consistent with precision medicine, given individualized dialysis dose adjustment based on patient's dynamic needs, leading to reduced patient suffering from longer or more frequent dialysis treatments and improved health-related quality of life. It includes twice-weekly or less frequent hemodialysis treatments with or without a low-protein diet on nondialysis days, or a shorter (<3 h) hemodialysis treatment three times per week or more frequent treatments, a useful approach for home hemodialysis initiation. Peritoneal dialysis also can be initiated incrementally with a shorter dwell time, less daily solution volume, or therapy for fewer than 7days per week. Subsequent transition to more frequent or more intense dialysis therapy within several months or longer will counter worsening fluid retention and uremia, for example, whenever residual urea clearance decreases to less than 2mL/min or if urine volume reaches less than 500mL/d, especially if loss of nocturia ensues. There are many advantages to using precision medicine tools to institute incremental dialysis protocols including preservation of residual kidney function, adhering to patient preference, and allowing for a greater patient-centeredness. Incremental dialysis may become the treatment of choice in End-stage renal disease Seamless Care Organizations (ESCO). This article also features a home hemodialysis patient's experience as a real-world scenario of how individualization of dialysis therapy based on unique patient characteristics and adjustment and shortening of hemodialysis treatment time and frequency led to improved patient experience, compliance with treatment regimen, and increased urine output, and the role of future ESCOs.

The strange case of Mr. H. Starting dialysis at 90 years of age: clinical choices impact on ethical decisions

Background

Starting dialysis at an advanced age is a clinical challenge and an ethical dilemma. The advantages of starting dialysis at “extreme” ages are questionable as high dialysis-related morbidity induces a reflection on the cost- benefit ratio of this demanding and expensive treatment in a person that has a short life expectancy. Where clinical advantages are doubtful, ethical analysis can help us reach decisions and find adapted solutions.

Case presentation

Mr. H is a ninety-year-old patient with end-stage kidney disease that is no longer manageable with conservative care, in spite of optimal nutritional management, good blood pressure control and strict clinical and metabolic evaluations; dialysis is the next step, but its morbidity is challenging. The case is analysed according to principlism (beneficence, non-maleficence, justice and respect for autonomy).

In the setting of care, dialysis is available without restriction; therefore the principle of justice only partially applied, in the absence of restraints on health-care expenditure. The final decision on whether or not to start dialysis rested with Mr. H (respect for autonomy). However, his choice depended on the balance between beneficence and non-maleficence. The advantages of dialysis in restoring metabolic equilibrium were clear, and the expected negative effects of dialysis were therefore decisive. Mr. H has a contraindication to peritoneal dialysis (severe arthritis impairing self-performance) and felt performing it with nursing help would be intrusive. Post dialysis fatigue, poor tolerance, hypotension and intrusiveness in daily life of haemodialysis patients are closely linked to the classic thrice-weekly, four-hour schedule. A personalized incremental dialysis approach, starting with one session per week, adapting the timing to the patient’s daily life, can limit side effects and “dialysis shock”.

Conclusions

An individualized approach to complex decisions such as dialysis start can alter the delicate benefit/side-effect balance, ultimately affecting the patient’s choice, and points to a narrative, tailor-made approach as an alternative to therapeutic nihilism, in very old and fragile patients.